Meeting on Open Meetings is Closed

Ya gotta love this Red Wing City Council!  I guess we are all free to speculate about what was discussed at the closed session on the rental inspection code.

What you didn’t get to hear was possibly a discussion of whether the City could be on the hook for the Plaintiff’s attorneys fees if the City loses.  How much might that be?  Well the City has incurred about $600,000 in fees and costs, for which they are responsible for about $200,000, insurance paid the rest.  The City now will pay 40% of fees going forward.  So, even if the Institute of Justice’s fees are only 1/2 that of what’s been spent on the City side, we, the taxpayers, could be on the hook for additional $300,000.  Add that to how much we are already out, and additional fees going forward,  we may be looking at possible exposure of fees and costs approaching $1,000,000.  For what?  This is an ego-driven train wreck.

How many more police officers get cut when the bill comes due?  Or, just jack up your taxes more.

Credit is due to Carol Duff, John Howe, and Lisa Bayley for trying to open up discussions. Keep pushing, and push harder.  The rest couldn’t wait to draw the curtains, shut off the cameras, and lock the doors.



Filed under Accountability, Minnesota, Open Meeting Law/ Data Practices, Red Wing, Red Wing City Council

5 responses to “Meeting on Open Meetings is Closed

  1. sueinmn

    It was very noticeable from my perspective, that the Council President was ready to shut the lights out with out even the required explanation of closing the session until Carol Duff spoke up. The head of the snake needs to be removed to stop this venom from spreading. Why the need of secrecy? This must be challenged! Can we bring this to the County Attorney for review? There must be somewhere that the public can have this challenged without expense from our pockets. These are Public Servants and they need to be reminded of this as they have so forgotten this fact. They are suppose to be the voice of the people! Council gone rogue……………and time to write letters to the Editor and ask the public their opinions of this type of power hungry control. This is not representation, this is something much darker and these people need to be stopped somehow!

    • steve

      The proper way to challenge this open meeting law violation would be through the attorney general of the state. While it may be legal, why does it happen at each meeting, obviously they purchased the farm on Mt Caramel in closed session, authorizing the purchasing director to sign a purchase agreement for 175,000 more than the asking price.

  2. sueinmn

    What purpose is there to pay more than the asking price? It makes no sense. Is someone contacting the AG over this issue? Anyone have all the facts in proper order to do so?

  3. I suppose you could look for the real estate listing and compare to what the Council stated it would offer for the property.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s